Players/agents and MLB/owners feud

[Hollywood42]

Completely different situation from this year. What you quoted was meant to be in regards to aging players and how liberally there have been massive contracts in the past. Harper will be just 26, and Machado only 25. Makes it a LOT easier to sign someone to a huge long term deal than the current FAs where they're all late 20s or early 30s already. You're right, there will still be huge contracts, but my point is that teams are going to be much more careful about when and who they give them to

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Doesn't this all become moot next year when Harper and Machado sign $400m+ contracts?

Some guys might even get those this year. I highly doubt J.D. Martinez has 5/125 sitting on the table, but he, Hosmer, and Darvish could all still easily get over $100m. Next year on top of Machado and Harper, Kershaw will get $200m+. You only have to go back to 2015 to see several $150m+, plus a bunch of player options, which used to be reserved for only the very best FA. The long term mega deal is most definitely not dead.

I do know that, but I think teams are becoming less tolerant of it. Sure, the player helped you out in the first few years, but when he gets to be mid 30s, production is dropping, and you're still paying him a bunch, that's what teams are increasingly trying to avoid

Long term contracts are structured so the back half is a disaster by design. People think that if a guy is worth $X, then he signs for so many years at that rate. That isn't how it works. When a guy signs a 7/140 contract, he's expected to produce more like $35m that first year. The shorter the deal, the higher the AAV. 5/125 and 7/140 are roughly equal contracts. In fact, for a team like the Red Sox it would be advantageous to sign the longer deal because of the way the luxury tax is calculated! This is why I'm doubtful that J.D. Martinez has 5/125 sitting on the table. I posted this on my Facebook a couple of days ago;

Equivalent MLB Contracts;
5 years, $85m
4 years, $77m
3 years, $63m
2 years, $46m
1 year., $25m

Right, and I did mention that it makes no sense for a mediocre team to spend money. Why would they? I don't think that's a huge problem, it's just how baseball works. If you know you're not going to be decent, you can either add to payroll and get a few more quality players, maybe win 10 more games and still not do anything, or you can trade some guys off for assets that will help you in a few years, plus increase your draft position. I do understand where you're coming from, but again, baseball is unique. Other sports don't work like this. Baseball teams really do go through multi-year cycles, and that's just part of the cycle

I also think you're underestimating the value of "tanking". I think the term tank is a little out of place here because you're right about one player not turning a franchise around, but there is no need for a team that doesn't project for at least 75 wins to spend money. The issue IMO isn't those bottom feeders "tanking". It's when the middle class teams with solid rosters don't try and win...or even end up selling off. That is happening a bunch this year.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, some good points in here

[Orange October]

"Owners own teams for one reason: they want to win"

lol

I mean sure maybe some of them, but I'm sure several care more about profits. I mean hell, Peter Angelos is 88 years old and it doesn't seem like he's in any massive rush to win anything.



I've read several reasons for this years stagnant market. I think its likely that this is just a one time thing. I read that due to next years historic free agent class, many teams are trying to stay under the luxury tax threshold in 2018. Teams like NYY, LAD, LAA, BOS, etc that want to go after Harper, Machado, Kershaw, etc next season want to reset their luxury tax escalators before then. I forget the exact numbers, but each year a team is over the luxury tax, they pay an increasing penalty rate. The first year it's like 20% or something, then 50% if they go over the following season, etc. In order to save money on those future massive contracts that will almost certainly put them way over the luxury tax next year, they are desperate to reset those escalators this season. That removes several potential suitors for top free agents. Other teams then may not be in as much of a rush to sign FAs if they feel like there is a less of a chance of another team swooping in and getting them.


I don't think this is the only factor, but I think it could be a big one. I'm not sure if players are under-paid or under-paid but you can argue either side. On one hand the contracts are larger than ever. On the other hand, MLB players used to get a greater share of the revenue. In the 70s/80s they had a bigger piece of the pie monetarily.

[nyjetsmets1]

I think teams are starting to realize that signing players to an A-Rod or Pujols type deal to players above 30 will not help the teams in the long run. Take Todd Frazier for example who just signed a 2 year $17 million contract with NYM. He was probably wanting 3-5 for $10-15 million a year. He also was looking at what Moustakas wanted, but he still remains unsigned. Frazier received that offer from the Mets and was tired of waiting. It was a very fair deal and made sense for Frazier to take it.

[seanbros55]

I'm going to add to the OPs first post with a very simplistic example of how the system is broken. (Yes, I agree with most of what everyone's said, and yes I understand how years of service:salaries escalate...)

But, in what world to you quibble over $3 million dollars in arbitration for a 25-year old franchise player with a 24.1 career WAR through 3.33 seasons (!!!!!!) while SIMULTANEOUSLY offering a 29-year old player with a career WAR of 13.7 through 6.33 seasons $25 million per.

That makes absolutely no sense, and needs to be fixed.

[NeedChapmans]

I believe this is nothing more than a necessary step. As JetsMets said above, how long will teams dish out bad contracts to absorb 2-3 good years in a trade-off for 5-6 average / bad years?

Baseball is evolving; becoming a bit younger than it used to be. Not too long ago, it took years to season and groom young players, and today a lot more of them are coming into the league "MLB ready". Not all of them, but a lot more of them. The bad thing for the very good but not great players in their late 20's, early 30's is that during this transition, it's simply going to suck for them.

Take note; all the players hitting the FA market next year; work with your teams to sign reasonable - strong extensions this years so you don't end up in a Spring Training for older players only session in March of 2019.

Forgetting all of the nonsense from the league that is pace of play and/or rule changes, the negotiations of 2021 will be critical for long-term success of the sport. There needs to be a way to not only shift the wealth to the group of younger players, but also make sure that the current crop of high 20's players are taken care of during that process. Sadly, seeing at what Manfred has done over the last few years, I'm not confident in the end result, but that could change.

Agents are funny you know. They burn owners time and time again by playing up their player, getting the massive 8/$225 contracts only to watch those contracts turn to rubble after 2 years, and then they say "it's collusion! Why won't you sign this guy for a ridiculous amount of money too".

If you want to place blame here, not that I believe any is deserved (because I don't view this as a problem), start with Boras.

[ridgerider]

In reality there are more things involved in contracts other than past/projected performance. Of the free agents available only Darvish will bring more to a team by adding merchandise sales, bringing people to the park to see him, boosted tv ratings etc. Do agents actually think more people will attend games to see JD Martinez and other free agents play or sell a lot of merchandise w/ their logo, increase tv ratings. The risk of that not happening is greater than it actually occurring and in compilation w/ the other tangible factors and previous history of large contracts it makes sense not to offer large AAV multiple year contracts. At least Pujols and Arod to name a few previous examples hype helped offset such contracts.

[Hollywood42]

Just getting around to replying to a few more points

Thanks for the clarification. It's a fair point, and does help out with players like Correa. But not all players, actually most players, don't get a sizable signing bonus. By the end of the first round, most players aren't getting more than $2 million as a bonus. Definitely is a nice part of the contract, but if you spread that out over the 6 years of team control that comes with the contract, you're looking at just an additional $333,333 per year. Assuming they make league minimum as long as they can, that'd make their salary around $850,000 for the first couple years

Obviously this is a big difference with the Correas, Trouts, Bryants, etc if you compare that to what they could get on the open market. But even just a solid, not great player often isn't making as much as they could anymore. Let's look at Eddie Rosario, for example. Solid left fielder, not a stud, still making league minimum this year. How much would be make this year on the open market? Not $20,000,000 like Correa, but it'd definitely be more than $500,000. Same deal with a guy like Max Kepler, who is in a similar situation to Rosario, but would command less than him on the open market. again, we're not talking a $20,000,000 difference anymore like with Correa or Bryant, but I think it's safe to say players like Kep could double or triple their salary in that case, if not more, even after taking signing bonuses into consideration

Point is, while it's easy to look at Correa, etc for how the system isn't working, it's also negatively effecting average everyday players still under team control, as I think there's a large number of them that would make more than league minimum. Yes, you will always have your Appels and Aikens who get big bonuses and then bust, but that's true for any sport

Originally Posted by enbambam6986

The owners are taking on all the risk. Why shouldn't they be rewarded by Correa panning out? I dont think Mark Appel is complaining about his $6 million dollar signing bonus.

Agreed with rwperu here, the market would balance itself out. There would be a bit of a weird period while it's still adjusting (true for just about any economic market), but it would even out

Originally Posted by enbambam6986

If the young controllable players become expensive, how would any team survive?

How can the Astros afford Verlander if Correa, Bregman, Altuve and Springer are making a ton?

Originally Posted by rwperu34

That's the way the (veteran) players have set it up. The young guys don't make as much as they produce so the veterans can make more than they produce. The way the team would survive their young guys making market value is market value would be much lower for everybody. Instead of Correa making $500k and Verlander $30m , they'd both make $15m (or whatever, you get the point).

Yes. That's partially due to the last agreement MLBPA made, but the way it has worked is you'll deal with it until you're a veteran, and then get paid, even if your production starts going down at the end of your deal. Piggybacking off of NC, the game is drastically changing nowadays. Players are peaking younger. Things are going to have to adapt

Originally Posted by AnthonyCorona

I've been waiting for this thread. For the first time ever, I agree with management here. For so long teams have paid for past performance instead of projected future numbers. While obviously not a perfect math, paying for future numbers makes a whole hell of a lot more sense. I heard the S word on MLB Network a few days back, but I gotta believe cooler heads with prevail, I can see no way baseball survives another strike. While I believe no one should work for less than they're worth, I think players might need to accept their world is changing.

Strongly agree. The game is simply changing. It happens. This part of the game will have to change too. It'll be a little messy for awhile, but if they make smart changes, everything will make sense and work great once we're past that. It's abundandtly clear that the game itself has changed over the past 10 years, now it's up to the MLB, owners, MLBPA, etc to adapt to those changes

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

I believe this is nothing more than a necessary step. As JetsMets said above, how long will teams dish out bad contracts to absorb 2-3 good years in a trade-off for 5-6 average / bad years?

Baseball is evolving; becoming a bit younger than it used to be. Not too long ago, it took years to season and groom young players, and today a lot more of them are coming into the league "MLB ready". Not all of them, but a lot more of them. The bad thing for the very good but not great players in their late 20's, early 30's is that during this transition, it's simply going to suck for them.

Take note; all the players hitting the FA market next year; work with your teams to sign reasonable - strong extensions this years so you don't end up in a Spring Training for older players only session in March of 2019.

Forgetting all of the nonsense from the league that is pace of play and/or rule changes, the negotiations of 2021 will be critical for long-term success of the sport. There needs to be a way to not only shift the wealth to the group of younger players, but also make sure that the current crop of high 20's players are taken care of during that process. Sadly, seeing at what Manfred has done over the last few years, I'm not confident in the end result, but that could change.

Agents are funny you know. They burn owners time and time again by playing up their player, getting the massive 8/$225 contracts only to watch those contracts turn to rubble after 2 years, and then they say "it's collusion! Why won't you sign this guy for a ridiculous amount of money too".

If you want to place blame here, not that I believe any is deserved (because I don't view this as a problem), start with Boras.

[mfw13]

Maybe it's the specialized bullpens....maybe it's the fact that pitchers are throwing harder...maybe it's the defensive shifts....maybe it's a combination of all of the above, but it's becoming pretty clear that hitters are suffering a huge drop-off in production around age 33/34.

So after seeing what has happened to Pujols and Miggy, GM's are wising up and realizing that it is very unwise to give any position player a contract that extends beyond his age 33/34 seasons.

And it also doesn't help that the juiced ball has introduced a lot more uncertainty into power numbers....it's become much harder for a GM to tell who's power is "real" and sustainable, as opposed to being a product of the juiced ball.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

I also think you're underestimating the value of "tanking". I think the term tank is a little out of place here because you're right about one player not turning a franchise around, but there is no need for a team that doesn't project for at least 75 wins to spend money. The issue IMO isn't those bottom feeders "tanking". It's when the middle class teams with solid rosters don't try and win...or even end up selling off. That is happening a bunch this year.

Agreed.

At this point, many of the mid-level teams are realizing that it is not particularly wise to spend huge amounts of money for a 50% chance of winning the Wild Card game (presuming you make it), followed by probably a 20-30% chance at winning the Division Series.

Right now, four out of the six divisions aren't even competitive, including all three in the NL (Dodgers in the West, Cubs in the Central, Nats in the East).

[Hollywood42]

So what are they supposed to do about it? Throw money at it and hope it works out? Serious question. If they're more than a couple FAs away from really competing, the next best route to improve their team is to let their young guys get experience, wait for their prospects to get MLB ready, and hope they get good draft picks. None of those usually result in a solid record

Originally Posted by mfw13

Agreed.

At this point, many of the mid-level teams are realizing that it is not particularly wise to spend huge amounts of money for a 50% chance of winning the Wild Card game (presuming you make it), followed by probably a 20-30% chance at winning the Division Series.

Right now, four out of the six divisions aren't even competitive, including all three in the NL (Dodgers in the West, Cubs in the Central, Nats in the East).

[RossOK]

The thing that infuriates me about the "This free agent class just sucks" or "Long term deals are dumb" arguments is that it completely ignores the owners' responsibility in the player/club agreement. Though very flawed and unfair, the system is currently set up where players are grossly underpaid for their first 7 years with the understanding that they'd be rewarded once they hit free agency. That's the trade off. But now the owners decided they can just arbitrarily stop keeping up their end. "We're tired of paying players for their decline years. Also, we'll continue to fill our squads with players we can pay fractions of what we should (but only after we dick with their service time in our favor first.) Thanks for all the RSN money and the free stadium, too." Also, don't ignore all the other wage-suppressing tweaks they've instituted over the years ("luxury" tax, draft bonus slotting, caps in international spending, qualifying offer).

The players and owners are in a unique partnership that's mutually beneficial. Without the clubs and league, the players couldn't play as a profession. Without the players, there'd be zero revenue generated for the owners. Anybody who says the players are already overpaid because they're getting to "play a kid's game for a living" is really out of touch with reality. They are the product that generates literally billions of dollars for the league. It might seemed pretty far removed most fans' daily life, but I'm pretty sure none of us here would be as invested in collecting cards and autographs of car salesmen or health care workers. So don't pretend that baseball players aren't special. We've collectively deemed them so as evidenced by the amount of time and money we spend following the game.

If there's any fault on the players' end, it's that they were naive to not realize ownership will do whatever they can to satiate their greed.

[Hollywood42]

You make a good point, but you're ignoring the shift we've seen in baseball of more players reaching high levels of success at a younger age, and many older players declining more in their 30s while making more money than ever before

Originally Posted by RossOK

The thing that infuriates me about the "This free agent class just sucks" or "Long term deals are dumb" arguments is that it completely ignores the owners' responsibility in the player/club agreement. Though very flawed and unfair, the system is currently set up where players are grossly underpaid for their first 7 years with the understanding that they'd be rewarded once they hit free agency. That's the trade off. But now the owners decided they can just arbitrarily stop keeping up their end. "We're tired of paying players for their decline years. Also, we'll continue to fill our squads with players we can pay fractions of what we should (but only after we dick with their service time in our favor first.) Thanks for all the RSN money and the free stadium, too." Also, don't ignore all the other wage-suppressing tweaks they've instituted over the years ("luxury" tax, draft bonus slotting, caps in international spending, qualifying offer).

The players and owners are in a unique partnership that's mutually beneficial. Without the clubs and league, the players couldn't play as a profession. Without the players, there'd be zero revenue generated for the owners. Anybody who says the players are already overpaid because they're getting to "play a kid's game for a living" is really out of touch with reality. They are the product that generates literally billions of dollars for the league. It might seemed pretty far removed most fans' daily life, but I'm pretty sure none of us here would be as invested in collecting cards and autographs of car salesmen or health care workers. So don't pretend that baseball players aren't special. We've collectively deemed them so as evidenced by the amount of time and money we spend following the game.

If there's any fault on the players' end, it's that they were naive to not realize ownership will do whatever they can to satiate their greed.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by RossOK

The thing that infuriates me about the "This free agent class just sucks" or "Long term deals are dumb" arguments is that it completely ignores the owners' responsibility in the player/club agreement. Though very flawed and unfair, the system is currently set up where players are grossly underpaid for their first 7 years with the understanding that they'd be rewarded once they hit free agency. That's the trade off. But now the owners decided they can just arbitrarily stop keeping up their end. "We're tired of paying players for their decline years. Also, we'll continue to fill our squads with players we can pay fractions of what we should (but only after we dick with their service time in our favor first.) Thanks for all the RSN money and the free stadium, too." Also, don't ignore all the other wage-suppressing tweaks they've instituted over the years ("luxury" tax, draft bonus slotting, caps in international spending, qualifying offer).

The players and owners are in a unique partnership that's mutually beneficial. Without the clubs and league, the players couldn't play as a profession. Without the players, there'd be zero revenue generated for the owners. Anybody who says the players are already overpaid because they're getting to "play a kid's game for a living" is really out of touch with reality. They are the product that generates literally billions of dollars for the league. It might seemed pretty far removed most fans' daily life, but I'm pretty sure none of us here would be as invested in collecting cards and autographs of car salesmen or health care workers. So don't pretend that baseball players aren't special. We've collectively deemed them so as evidenced by the amount of time and money we spend following the game.

If there's any fault on the players' end, it's that they were naive to not realize ownership will do whatever they can to satiate their greed.

Sorry Mr. perpetual bleeding heart but the only ones out of touch with reality are the players, like JD Martinez for example, who is offended at a $25 million dollar per year offer. Keep your head in the clouds and keep reaching for the stars though.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

You make a good point, but you're ignoring the shift we've seen in baseball of more players reaching high levels of success at a younger age, and many older players declining more in their 30s while making more money than ever before

It's not a coincidence that there are more young players on the big league clubs now than in the past. The more slots taken up by players making 5-25% of their market value, the fewer left for veterans looking to make up for their years of being underpaid.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

Sorry Mr. perpetual bleeding heart but the only ones out of touch with reality are the players, like JD Martinez for example, who is offended at a $25 million dollar per year offer. Keep your head in the clouds and keep reaching for the stars though.

I'd rather my heart be bleeding than nonexistent.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by RossOK

I'd rather my heart be bleeding than nonexistent.

Because I don't sympathize with the plight of millionaire ballplayers I don't have a heart? Interesting logic you've got there.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

Because I don't sympathize with the plight of millionaire ballplayers I don't have a heart? Interesting logic you've got there.

It's more your continued lack of empathy displayed across the board. Using "bleeding heart" as pejorative doesn't help your case.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by RossOK

It's more your continued lack of empathy displayed across the board. Using "bleeding heart" as pejorative doesn't help your case.

I have empathy for those who deserve it. I could give numerous examples of such. However ballplayers making more in a year, then most everyone else in the world will make in a lifetime, need not apply.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

I have empathy for those who deserve it. I could give numerous examples of such. However ballplayers making more in a year, then most everyone else in the world will make in a lifetime, need not apply.

Well on the flip side of that, why would you side with the owners keeping more? They're all much better off than the players. The money generated goes somewhere. All of these clubs are supposedly all of a sudden fiscally responsible by not giving out long term contracts, meaning the cost of running the team is lowered. Why don't you see ticket or concessions or merchandise prices dropping commensurately? Because the owners, already billionaires, simply want more wealth for themselves.

[morningrushnc]

"They're here!"

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by RossOK

Well on the flip side of that, why would you side with the owners keeping more? They're all much better off than the players. The money generated goes somewhere. All of these clubs are supposedly all of a sudden fiscally responsible by not giving out long term contracts, meaning the cost of running the team is lowered. Why don't you see ticket or concessions or merchandise prices dropping commensurately? Because the owners, already billionaires, simply want more wealth for themselves.

We've gone over all of this. Owners should keep more. This is how running a business works. You hire employees who make you money. You disperse a percentage of that amount to your employees for their services while keeping most of the profits for yourself.

As for your last couple of sentences I am mostly in agreement with you there. The cost of merchandise and tickets should be reduced due to the fact that operating expenses will theoretically be lower. That being said the initial rise in said ticket prices and merchandise is almost a direct causation of the explosion in player salaries over the last two decades. When you are paying a (generic example) utility infielder who bats .250 $12 million dollars a year, yeah that's getting passed on to the consumer to help with padding the bottom line.

[mainerunr]

Originally Posted by morningrushnc

Is there any truth to this part? I can't imagine a labor negotiation of this caliber getting passed with this type of unwritten understanding between parties. Especially when it usually involves the player switching teams and expecting the new team to pay him for his past performance with the old team.

Probably because it does not exist other than in his mind. The is no way the owners made such a statement.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by mainerunr

Probably because it does not exist other than in his mind. The is no way the owners made such a statement.

Careful now you don't want to trigger him. There are no safe spaces in this thread.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by VeedonFleece

Excellent post, start to finish.

(Go my Brewers btw. They're not even middle class and still going for it!)

ESPN reposted an article from early January talking about teams that hadn't been spending and I thought it was interesting that they mentioned the Brewers. FWIW, the Brewers are a classic middle class team, IMO. They're a mid 70s win team that moved themselves into the upper 70s and will probably have .500 talent by the time they are done.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

So what are they supposed to do about it? Throw money at it and hope it works out? Serious question. If they're more than a couple FAs away from really competing, the next best route to improve their team is to let their young guys get experience, wait for their prospects to get MLB ready, and hope they get good draft picks. None of those usually result in a solid record

Yes. Or really we just need to define competitive. To me, if you've got 75 win MLB talent (ie top 25 in the league, or top 4 in your division), obvious holes to fill, and an at least an average farm system, you should probably be looking to improve your squad for that season. Baseball has so much variance and you have so many opportunities to improve (or sell off) during the season that you almost need to put yourself in a better position. The NBA/NFL comparison is apt here as well. Weaker post season teams have a much better chance of winning in MLB than the other sports.

I suppose it should depend on which way your team is headed as well. A team on the way up should be a lot more aggressive than a team on the way down (although it doesn't play out like this in the real world) with teams in their peak window should be the most aggressive.

I think teams are becoming less tolerant of it. Sure, the player helped you out in the first few years, but when he gets to be mid 30s, production is dropping, and you're still paying him a bunch, that's what teams are increasingly trying to avoid

Two recent examples.

#1-Lorenzo Cain is going to make $13m this year, $17m in the final year of the deal when his production is projected much less (if any), and $5m after the deal expires with no expected production.

#2-Max Scherzer will make $15m/yr for the 7 years he's signed for then $15m a year for the next 7 years after that. That's $105m the Nats are willing to pay with expectation of zero production.

I'm telling you. They backload contracts for a reason. It is beneficial to both player (gets more money overall) and team (able to invest more in this year's team).